Testing the Hand Dermatitis Screening Tool in the Home Health Care Sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Workers exposed to wet work are at an increased risk for occupational contact dermatitis and may benefit from screening to detect early disease. The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of hand dermatitis in home care workers, identify factors that influence presence of disease, and explore feasibility and importance of workplace screening in the home care sector. Following institutional ethics approval, nurses, personal support workers, and rehab therapists at one large home care provider in Ontario, Canada, self-screened for hand dermatitis using the Hand Dermatitis Screening Tool and accompanying photo guide and completed a short feasibility evaluation. Of the 220 participants, 18% had a positive screen for hand dermatitis and 77% reported exposure to wet work. In all, 93% of participants reported using the tool took less than 2 minutes and 84% reported screening for hand dermatitis is important. In conclusion, prevalence of hand dermatitis in home care workers is higher than reported in the general population. Workplace screening for hand dermatitis was deemed important, and the tool was feasible to use in the home care sector.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".